Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 10, Chiu 3, Daly 3, The City 2, Maxwell 2, Us 2, Cognos 1, Geary 1, Holdman 1, Eir 1, Sud 1, Dda 1, Octavia 1, Jeffrey Nelson 1, Chinatown 1, Korea 1, City 1, Mr. Nelson 1, Mar 1, Plymouth 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    September 22, 2010
    11:30 - 12:00am PDT  

11:30pm
neighborhood development corp., it became an engine for jobs and housing development, and what we have before us today is really the beginning of a conversation to find out the fate of cathedral hills, to find out if that will be the same type of engine for human betterment or whether it is displacement to be continued. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am also with the good neighbor coalition. we have been working with residents as well as community- based organizations in the tenderloin and central city, and we have been doing a lot of outreach and education about the van ness area plan, special with residents in our community, and we have found a lot of folks are wondering about the issues that
11:31pm
have not been looked at and have basically been ignored, and the folks in our community are watching it very closely. we want to know that housing will be billed out of this play and. for the most part, folks are concerned about the increased number of jobs in the immediate area to the hospital and the impact on affordable housing in an already low-income neighborhood, where housing is already a distress situation. as well as the impacts that traffic will have on the neighborhood, which could have been mitigated through creating affordable housing. the folks in the community are watching the outcome of the van ness area plan very closely, note and we hope that the 38 -- very close the, and we hope that the three to one is looked at very closely.
11:32pm
-- very closely. >> members of the land use community, and i am a council for a community organization, and we join with our allies in the good neighbors coalition in supporting this resolution. three things i think are important to be stressed. one, with any policy in san francisco, large developments should seek to include housing for a portion of its work force in federal possible, and second, then major developers or developers of major projects should seek to mitigate their housing in packs, especially in tax on low and moderate income households in providing affordable housing.
11:33pm
i want to stress what the professor made clear. cpmc is proposing a conditional use for the portion of its development plan. it is proposing a totally complete exception. it is proposing a rezoning. so the conversation above them a 50% reduction as a conditional use is something already taken off of the table by cpmc, which leaves those of us on the community side perplexed, and clearly, it is the city's way of doing business in housing development to do area plants. those area plants, market octavia and van ness calm mixed
11:34pm
use development, building housing and in plymouth opportunities, those requirements are at the federal and state level, and here we have a major area coming into an area plan and seemingly, but pay no attention to long-established policy. these are meaningful opportunities in the development of the construction. this includes health care facilities. so thank you very much. in considering this measure. we strongly urge your support. supervisor chiu: 80.
11:35pm
>> good afternoon. my name is jeffrey nelson, the head of planning for a medical center. i just want to say that we take this very seriously, as well, and we're under no illusion that we would not be creating new benefits, including housing, and i want to provide a little bit of context as to why some people would have come into conclusions that this was overlooked. hospitals do not have the luxury of having zones. there are special uses everywhere in the city. they are conditional uses. they're all at the discretion of the commission, and we always have to shote our ability. the language that is proposed for the special use district has the allowance for hospitals for a conditional use, and no one is trying to get out from under
11:36pm
that. why is there not a discussion of a three to one housing requirement? there are multiple housing requirements in the sweep of the projects, including st. luke's. one is the three to one issue. we wanted to basically start a dialogue, and we sat down of to a couple of years ago and i think we stand ready. i just want to say that we remain committed.
11:37pm
in 2006, we were heading down a road. we heard loud and clear that the community benefit broadly understood, and requested access was to keep to a certain level financially. we are going to do that. to the extent that this goes forward, not try to predetermine the outcome, because cpmc can come to the table with many, many different.things. supervisor chiu: if i could ask a question of you? am i hearing from you that if we cannot find other ways, you
11:38pm
would fill this requirement that we are talking about, which i understand is $2 -- note 2 million square feet of residential. >> no, we are not a housing developer. we basically came to the site, knowing that we needed to try to parlay some of this, such as health care delivery, but there is no proposal to build 2 million square feet of affordable housing at this point. supervisor chiu: and i think the other thing is that i am obviously acutely aware that you will be doing something that will provide a benefit to the city, note and you are saying that you are providing a
11:39pm
community benefit, and it should be a community benefit. i am not sure if an analogy holds water for me, so i just wanted to put that out there. >> i apologize for that conclusion. it was just evidence at different times over multiple years that the issue of the day -- in 2008, it was the continuation of inpatient services. supervisor chiu: let me ask you one other thing. when did you purchase the parcels on this site? >> some of be purchased in 2004. the commercial and residential properties across van ness ave down geary, would purchase of those over multiple years. supervisor chiu: the requirement
11:40pm
that we're talking about, legislated in the 1980's, and it was amended in the 1990's. you are well aware of them. >> we are well aware of them. this is the week holdman korea arrive at some sort of solution and deal with those in our community. pausupervisor chiu: ok, so at ts time, there are no dda's? ok. chair maxwell: any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i would like to ask the director to come. >> f8u, supervisor. i just wanted to clarify one thing. it is roughly 2 million square feet, and that is for housing. based on the inclusionary requirements.
11:41pm
it is still a very big number, and i just wanted to clarify that about the van ness corridor to they come in with that, i do not have any other comments. we clearly understand that the community is asking for the requirement to be met, and we are analyzing and still do not know because of this grows worse is selling at issue. we have to do a very detailed analysis to understand that " -- because this is a gross vs. solly.net -- gross versus net. there will be several months of work before our analysis will be completed. i would look out over the next five or six months, at least.
11:42pm
chair maxwell: so the first part of next year? >> the first quarter of next year. we will probably know. just to be clear, while there is a conditional use, what the hospital has proposed is a new notsud. chair maxwell: what would that look like? >> the way it is currently being proposed, it allows more flexibility, basically, for the reduction. it would allow more flexibility
11:43pm
in how the requirement is met. chair maxwell: ok, so it would actually change the whole intent of the legislation note from 1980 to 1998 -- of the legislation from 1980 to 1990 oa. >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: your say the analysis will not be part of the eir. it will be separate from that. >> i probably was not very clear about this. 2 million square feet or so of housing as part of that package. if this board chose not to grant the exception as proposed renew sud, then we would have to look anew at the environmental review, because we would have to look at housing. we would have to look at the
11:44pm
impacts of however many units of housing as part of the eir. supervisor chiu: hopefully, this sends a strong enough signal, in a think if we can find a way to wrap up these issues, it would be very helpful. chair maxwell: i also think that as we look at how hospitals and how all of this is shaping up, it is not just about hospitals for the common good. it is hospitals for profit in many ways. i am not saying anyone in particular, notso i think theres a lot of things that citizens of san francisco will be looking at. it is not just the tenderloin community. they are looking at everything we do, and looking at the laws
11:45pm
and the exceptions, san francisco really knows our need for housing. supervisor mar? supervisor chiu: this meets a need that cannot be reasonably met elsewhere in the area. there are other hospitals campuses throughout the city better meeting an important need. the rationale that i have been given for this project is a need
11:46pm
to consolidate cpmc campuses, and i am not sure if you think is that rises to the level of something that cannot be reasonably met elsewhere, if you understand where i am going. >> a couple of thoughts on that. this is certainly been the trend of the consolidated services, primarily because of the cost of technology i say that is that seems to be a national trend. of course, other hospitals that are being built that are not in the van ness corridor do not have this housing requirements. clearly, they chose it well after the requirements korean, just as mr. nelson note
11:47pm
suggested. i just throw this out there for your consideration. supervisor chiu: other jurisdictions consolidating, that is partially dictated by health care economics, and the think from a san francisco perspective, something my colleagues have expressed an interest in is thinking about the right distribution of health care and health care access the rock the city. what is good as far as the needs we have as a city. i know there has not been the health care access and equity that we need to really understand here. that is probably not going to be in the eir. >> no. supervisor chiu: ok, so i just wanted to put that out there as another consideration. chair maxwell: and you are right
11:48pm
about the other hospitals. we can change that. we can change that. thank you. any other questions? all right, supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i do have one very small amendment i would like to make to this resolution, both due to this conversation in the conversation office has had with stakeholders to provide a little bit of flexibility to those for a solution. what i would like to propose is that on the second page of the resolution that we referred to the importance of ensuring the new development projects should substantially advance the underlying housing production goals, so other words, rather than locking us into a very precise way of producing the housing, that as long as we know we are making headway in achieving levels that are substantial, and we have continued to hear that word mentioned in discussion in the public comment that that is what we are trying to achieve, so
11:49pm
just to add the word "substantially" into that. chair maxwell: all right, then, colleagues, on the amendment. so moved. the legislation as amended. madam clerk, i would like to go back to item number three. clerk somera: to provide a minor encroachment waiver. chair maxwell: thank you. is there is someone from supervisor daly's office. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is april, and i am with supervisor daly's office. this is basically an amendment to the public works could to waive the public encroachment
11:50pm
fee for affordable housing projects -- to the public works code. this is for some that have subbasements and for the subbasements, an annual fee could look like 10,000 dollars per year annually, and this would come out of some other budget. we sought to introduce something that would exempt this minor encroachment fee for new affordable housing developments. chair maxwell: 100% affordable housing developments? >> 100% affordable housing developments, yes. chair maxwell: we are looking at $10,000, $25,000, something like that? >> per year. chair maxwell: all right, thank you. cognos, any comments or questions? -- colleagues, any comments or
11:51pm
questions? >> mid-afternoon, again, supervisors. the department thinks this is a good thing to do. we do not have that many, because we do not track projects according to their affordability generally. this does specify 100%. it would be easy to determine which properties meet the guidelines. thank you. chair maxwell: all right, public comment? >> good afternoon. supervisor daly initiated this legislation at our request. a lot of the old hotels and even a lot of new housing that is affordable have basements, and we did bills from the city for encroachment permit. -- we get bills. the money from this really comes
11:52pm
from one of two places. it comes from tenants' rents, or in those that are 100% homeless housing that the city subsidizes, it really comes out of government budgets, so approving this legislation from our perspective in point will relieve the pressure on us to increase rents, because some of those are in the tenderloin, and it will affect people in the tenderloin. thank you. chair maxwell: thank you. >> my name is michael young, and i and with the chinatown community development center. we are also in support of this legislation. i want to quickly reiterate what he had to say. the organization has worked with many affordable units over the past 30 years or so, and we believe that if this e was imposed, it would impact our building, as well. -- if this fee was imposed.
11:53pm
the fis would really come out of the city coffers or from out of their rents -- the fees. we hope that this board supports this legislation. >> i am speaking on behalf of the legislation. thank you to supervisor daly >> there is no such thing in santa skull as affordable housing land. we don't get affordable 2 by 4's, we don't get affordable services from electricians or carpenters. we pay market rate for the materials and for the commercial financing. the magic in san francisco is
11:54pm
not passing on the cost. the cost of development to the end user. that means that someone has to pick up that difference. the san francisco model is about 25,000 affordable units in the last 25 years of san francisco. the city and county of san francisco stands up and makes that commitment. so that the magic of the marketplace doesn't work and affordable housing in san francisco, we have to have direct subsidies. those direct subsidies has to come in a variety of ways, whenever possible, they would otherwise be paid for by the city. we need all the contract
11:55pm
requirements, we pay wages, we provide health care for our work force. we do all of the contract requirements that you require for the for-profit developers. in these matters, we do. it is part of the great process and providing housing to be able to be afforded by low-income people in san francisco. you rarely have an opportunity to do that, today you have an opportunity to do that. i would urge you to do it. supervisor maxwell: any public comment? public comment is closed. thank you very much. is there any further business
11:56pm
before this committee? >> there are no further items. supervisor maxwell: this meeting is adjourned.
11:57pm
11:58pm
11:59pm